Date: 19980120
Docket: T-33-97
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the
decision of a Citizenship Judge
AND IN THE MATTER OF
Bissoondai Etwaree Bridgelal,
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GIBSON, J.:
[1] The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Citizenship Court denying her application for a grant of Canadian citizenship on the sole ground that she failed to meet the residency requirement established by paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. That provision reads as follows:
5(1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who
....
(c) has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence, has not ceased since such
admission to be a permanent resident pursuant to section 24 of the Immigration Act, and has,
within the four years immediately
preceding the date of his application, accumulated at least three years of residence in Canada calculated in the following manner:
| (i) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada before his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one-half of a day of residence, and |
| (ii) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada after his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one day of residence; |
| .... |
5. (1) Le ministre attribue la citoyenneté à toute personne qui, à la fois :
c) a été légalement admise au Canada à titre de résident permanent, n'a pas depuis perdu ce titre en application de l'article 24 de la Loi sur l'immigration, et a, dans les quatre ans qui ont précédé la
date de sa demande, résidé au Canada pendant au moins trois ans en tout, la durée de sa résidence
étant calculée de la manière suivante :
(i) un demi-jour pour chaque jour de résidence au Canada avant son admission à titre de résident
permanent,
(ii) un jour pour chaque jour de résidence au Canada après son admission à titre de résident permanent;
[2] The appellant is Trinidadian. She was born in Trinidad and spent all of her life there before landing in Canada on the 6th of February, 1991, under the sponsorship of her daughter. The appellant's husband had died in Trinidad in 1989.
[3] In the years following her arrival in Canada, the appellant spent extensive periods of time back in Trinidad. The evidence that was before the Citizenship Court and before me was to the effect that these stays in Trinidad were largely the result of religious obligations relating to the death of her husband, the sudden illness and death of her granddaughter and the appellant's own illness. Since late March of 1994, with the exception of brief visits to Trinidad, the appellant's time has been spent in Canada where her four children and all of her grandchildren reside. She lives with one of her sons and her life centres around her children, her grandchildren and her church in the community in Canada where she lives.
[4] Despite the fact that the appellant, as at the date of her application for citizenship, failed, in strict mathematical terms, to meet the residency requirements of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act quoted above, I am satisfied that the quality of her attachment to Canada is such that, in qualitative terms, the requirements of that paragraph can be said to have been met.
[5] In Ananda Banerjee1, Mr. Justice Dubé wrote:
| However, each case must turn on its facts. It is the quality of the attachment to Canada that is to be ascertained. No specific item or number of items will, in all cases, be determinative of the issues.... The length of the absences of itself is not determinative. However, taken together with the circumstances which surround the absences, the length of the absences may be a factor in determining a person's quality of attachment to Canada..... [Citations omitted.] |
[6] Here, I conclude that the length of appellant's absences in the early years after her landing in Canada, are not determinative. Other factors including the fact that the appellant's children and grandchildren are all here in Canada, that she is dependant on them, and to a significant degree, they on her, and her involvement with her church here in Canada clearly indicate that the quality of her attachment is, and for sometime has been, to Canada rather than to Trinidad.
[7] For the foregoing reasons, this appeal will be allowed and I will recommend that the appellant be granted Canadian citizenship.
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
January 20, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980120
Docket: T-33-97
BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the
decision of a Citizenship Judge
AND IN THE MATTER OF
Bissoondai Etwaree Bridgelal,
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: T-33-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
| R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29 |
| AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the |
| decision of a Citizenship Judge |
| AND IN THE MATTER OF |
| Bissoondai Etwaree Bridgelal, |
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 19, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: GIBSON, J.
DATED: JANUARY 20, 1998
APPEARANCES: Chanardai Puchoon
For the Appellant
Peter K. Large
Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Chanardai Puchoon
154 Borrows Street
Thornhill, Ontario
L4J 2W8
Representative (daughter) for the Appellant
Peter K. Large
Barrister and Solicitor
610-372 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2W9
Amicus Curiae
__________________